I purchased my 2T about two weeks ago now and have had nothing but good experience. I don’t have any other power meters to compare it to, so I can’t speak on that. Aside from having the cadence issue that was fixed by the latest firmware update, it has been flawless
4 Likes
Yes I am thinking the same when I get it today. I do have the 4iiii to compare it to but wont fret too much if there are slight variances. Plan to use the 2t as the sole power measurement inside and my 4iiii outside after my first test where I will record on both.
I have no baseline smart trainer to compare to, so the 2T is my first. I bought it on a whim just a week ago after seeing Lama and Rainmaker’s YT reviews and actually have no regrets other than maybe I should’ve waited for the 20% holiday deals that are on like at REI and Clever.
Initially as Lama and a few reported using their terms, it does feel like it’s “aggressive” initially when spinning up, but looking at the charts when I view other folks charts on different trainers/meters, I think the 2T is more “responsive” as someone else called out. As a sprinter myself and tried other friend’s trainers, i can also attest of the wheel-slippage-feeling when applying power on big sprints/climbs on occasion. With the 2T I have not experienced it all. Only time will tell now on long term reliability.
1 Like
This is what I do, except I have a Neo (not 2 or 2T) and I find it awesome. I don’t power match because I find the Neo itself quite stable and there are less fluctuations. If this means anything, my neo is around 5~ watts higher than my 4i, but my 4i is single side so I assume its a manufacturers tolerance+leg imbalances which skews the numbers. I don’t think too hard about it and I LOVE my neo!
1 Like
Good to hear and that is what I figured. Looking forward to riding tonight and testing it out. Where do I register the trainer? I have a bunch of Garmin products and typically do it via GC but I don’t see it in the normal area.
1 Like
I bought mine when Tacx was not owned by Garmin. Check the Tacx website, I believe I registered mine there.
Either that or it was via the tacx app. You need the app to update the trainer anyways, so 2 birds with 1 stone.
You’d obviously have to replace the floor mat though 
Haha I like to mix it up. Send me one and I will replace it 
Well update time after using for a few days. Was updated to current firmware and everything.
Going to send the Neo back as it still has virtual wheel slip on low gears even though it was supposed to be fixed on the 2T. Will keep going with my trusty old kickr snap and powermatch with my 4iiii left crank.
I think with the direction that most companies are going these days with the electro-magnetic resistance, “virtual wheel slip” is going to be difficult if not impossible to eliminate for any punchy riders.
I kinda wish I had known this in relation to the Neo Bike. It’s not a dealbreaker by any means, but it is a minor annoyance. Not like the Wahoo bike would be any better.
True and makes sense as it is cool technology. It just annoys me and I had hopes the 2t eliminated it as people said it did but it did not for me anyway. Not all is lost though as I will go back to old faithful for a while longer.
Maybe its time to take that $$ and apply it to a mtn bike.
I wave a 25W spread between my vectors and Neo 2 The vector power numbers line up with calculated power required for the local big hill. The spread varies somewhat with power output but is fairly consistent at 25W. Both produce repeatable results. Any ideas or comments?
Well to follow up with this, Garmin ended up replacing my Neo 2 with a 2T. Put up my first workout with it tonight and its still really not matching up with the Favero’s to my liking. Average is 7% higher on my Favero’s vs the 2T. I did Dade -1 tonight and it turns the workout from mildly difficult to incredibly hard. I really don’t want to fiddle with adjusting workout difficulties and such.
Maybe it is my pedals reading high, but I’m inclined to trust the pedals. Some of my race performances really wouldn’t make sense at an 8-10% reduction in power without an insanely good Cda according to Best Bike Split math. Plus the weighted calibration test on the pedals nailed the weight to within a few grams (<0.01%). Going to return the trainer to REI. We’ll see if they give me any hassle for trying to return a different product than the one I bought, even if it is 40% more money. 
@TravisM why aren’t you using powermatch?
1 Like
I wanted to be able to leave my TT bike on the trainer and my Favero’s on the road bike for outdoor riding without constantly swapping gear around.
You could set a lower FTP value in TR and this will compensate for the difference for you. Basically power test with the power source you are using. The absolute value doesn’t really matter.
4 Likes
Probably, but for the $1,000 spent on this trainer I’m really not happy with anything less than perfection. I don’t even use Zwift, so I really don’t need all the fancy features of this trainer. I bought it because both GPlama and DCrainmaker’s reviews showed it tracking extremely closely to their pedal based power meters. I’ll just go back to my Road machine for now.
Just throwing this out there but how do you know your pedals are accurate? How do you know what your “actual power is” without a calibration tool? Unless you are DC Rainmaker with like 6 power meters and you can test between many sources what is accurate, it really is unknown. Even then, its all relative. Unless you can calibrate the power yourself and verify (and that is with an experimental setup) IMO it’s just an inherent issue with reading power; you will always have some offsets but the important thing is low variations between readings. High accuracy could mean “absolute accuracy” of the reading, or “how accurate the measurements are”.
You should really use power match to have one source of power or test to see what the difference between the 2 power meters are and understand the offset. I am more concerned about paying for low variations than have huge variations but a “correct average power”. The former can make you faster, but the latter will just be excessive noise.
4 Likes
Just throwing this out there as well but the Tacx would read similar to a hub based power meter, where drivetrain losses are not captured and what you read is the “transferred” power that the ground would feel. OTOH in crank or pedal power based sensors, drive train losses are included in the power that is read, so unless theres software to account for this (it is from my understanding that it is NOT accounted for) you would have a non-negligible source of error. Unless you have a friction-less chain/drivetrain setup… the power readings will inherently have an offset. I spoke to some experts the other day on this and they confirmed that hub based power meters are the “gold standard” they would use to “use for their data”. However, even with an offset, if the readings are accurate with respect to low variances, it doesn’t matter… unless you want to compare dick sizes, in which case you would need the exact same setup, or… get the most highly offset reading you can get, which will ensure you maximize your readings.
3 Likes